Pet insurance yanked away after 17 years
October 28, 2024 5:11 AM Subscribe
We just got notified that our pet insurance is being discontinued in December. Our adored cat is 17, and while they cite their terms & conditions, it seems hugely unfair. Is there anything you’d do?
When we first got Pippin, we imagined we wouldn’t need insurance. We’re fortunate enough to be able to cover her care ourselves without much angst if it’s in the hundreds- to thousands-of-dollars range, and if it was ever a lot more, we thought we’d be able to rationally face what must be some pretty dire facts.
Then we fell in love with her, and realized we never wanted to have to make that rational call. Even though we knew that the insurance company comes out ahead most of the time, we decided it was worth paying each year so that if Pippin ever needs something really exorbitant, we’d be able to make those hard decisions based on her and us, not based on money.
So we signed up for a plan. We chose a high deductible, and no coverage for routine care, because all we wanted was one benefit: being able to decide about extreme measures someday without basing it on money.
We chose a plan that promised a predetermined, stable rate from age 10 on, so we knew we could always keep it. Some years later, that plan (from Purina) was sold to 24PetWatch, which didn’t keep that promise. (I didn’t try to do anything about that, as I figured it must have been allowed in the small print.) So we’ve been paying more and more each year – over $800 last year, for example. Each year, we’ve decided nonetheless to knowingly keep holding the short end of the stick, for 17 years, solely because we didn’t ever want to have to decide what price to put on Pippin’s life.
Now, we’re nonetheless vulnerable to that exact risk -- the risk we paid thousands and thousands to avoid. We’d never have paid all these years knowing they’d cut Pippin off in her old age. There’s no way to get that peace of mind back at any price now, as there's no profit to be made off insuring 17-year-old cats and their lifetime of preexisting conditions.
The notice sounds like a shell game to me. It reads: “In accordance with the Terms and Conditions… this is your notice that insurance will cease… as a result of discontinuation of the 24PetWatch Pet Insurance Program.” It’s accompanied by an option of an accident-only policy (which we don’t want), and says that “the 24PetWatch Insurance program will be administered under a new brand, Hartville Pet Insurance… underwritten by Independence American Insurance Company [instead of North River Insurance Company]. The administrator for the new policy will continue to be PTZ Insurance Agency, Ltd.”
Is there anything you’d do? I want Pippin's insurance back, or as a second choice, I want the appreciated value of all the premiums we've paid minus reimbursements, which by now could at least partly self-insure her. Would you reach out to the press? (What press, and how to do that most effectively?) Send a “how can you sleep at night” plea to an executive? (What executive(s) and how)? Contact legislators to try to make it so this kind of thing can’t happen going forward? Or try to let it go?
When we first got Pippin, we imagined we wouldn’t need insurance. We’re fortunate enough to be able to cover her care ourselves without much angst if it’s in the hundreds- to thousands-of-dollars range, and if it was ever a lot more, we thought we’d be able to rationally face what must be some pretty dire facts.
Then we fell in love with her, and realized we never wanted to have to make that rational call. Even though we knew that the insurance company comes out ahead most of the time, we decided it was worth paying each year so that if Pippin ever needs something really exorbitant, we’d be able to make those hard decisions based on her and us, not based on money.
So we signed up for a plan. We chose a high deductible, and no coverage for routine care, because all we wanted was one benefit: being able to decide about extreme measures someday without basing it on money.
We chose a plan that promised a predetermined, stable rate from age 10 on, so we knew we could always keep it. Some years later, that plan (from Purina) was sold to 24PetWatch, which didn’t keep that promise. (I didn’t try to do anything about that, as I figured it must have been allowed in the small print.) So we’ve been paying more and more each year – over $800 last year, for example. Each year, we’ve decided nonetheless to knowingly keep holding the short end of the stick, for 17 years, solely because we didn’t ever want to have to decide what price to put on Pippin’s life.
Now, we’re nonetheless vulnerable to that exact risk -- the risk we paid thousands and thousands to avoid. We’d never have paid all these years knowing they’d cut Pippin off in her old age. There’s no way to get that peace of mind back at any price now, as there's no profit to be made off insuring 17-year-old cats and their lifetime of preexisting conditions.
The notice sounds like a shell game to me. It reads: “In accordance with the Terms and Conditions… this is your notice that insurance will cease… as a result of discontinuation of the 24PetWatch Pet Insurance Program.” It’s accompanied by an option of an accident-only policy (which we don’t want), and says that “the 24PetWatch Insurance program will be administered under a new brand, Hartville Pet Insurance… underwritten by Independence American Insurance Company [instead of North River Insurance Company]. The administrator for the new policy will continue to be PTZ Insurance Agency, Ltd.”
Is there anything you’d do? I want Pippin's insurance back, or as a second choice, I want the appreciated value of all the premiums we've paid minus reimbursements, which by now could at least partly self-insure her. Would you reach out to the press? (What press, and how to do that most effectively?) Send a “how can you sleep at night” plea to an executive? (What executive(s) and how)? Contact legislators to try to make it so this kind of thing can’t happen going forward? Or try to let it go?
Your state has an Insurance Commission; it'll be under the Atty General's office on the web., Call them.
posted by theora55 at 5:18 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 5:18 AM on October 28 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: koahiatamadl, the notice says they don't have a comparable policy for us, just an accident-only plan. Pippin's biggest life adventures these days are napping and cuddling, so accidents are not our primary concern.
posted by daisyace at 5:29 AM on October 28
posted by daisyace at 5:29 AM on October 28
Is there anything you’d do?
I would personally start by going through the small print, with a jeweller's loupe if necessary, instead of just assuming that the party I'd contracted with to pay for my cat's care if required could simply walk away from their half of that contract consequence-free.
Send a “how can you sleep at night” plea to an executive?
I wouldn't do that because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the response.
posted by flabdablet at 5:31 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
I would personally start by going through the small print, with a jeweller's loupe if necessary, instead of just assuming that the party I'd contracted with to pay for my cat's care if required could simply walk away from their half of that contract consequence-free.
Send a “how can you sleep at night” plea to an executive?
I wouldn't do that because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the response.
posted by flabdablet at 5:31 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
I agree that the first step is to figure out what liability there might be (or not) in the fine print.
But, regardless of what you find, I'd also try to dig up the old websites of the first and second pet insurance companies, using WayBack Machine or another Internet archive, and any advertising if you have it. I am not a lawyer, and hopefully some lawyer Mefites can chime in, but I wonder if you could sue on the basis of deceptive advertising. When I looked into Pet Insurance I recall one of the main pitches companies used was about their dependability - that, as you say attracted you, they promise to be there cradle to grave to provide care for your pet.
You might also go to Reddit - r/cats, r/petinsurancereviews, etc. and see if you can find other people similarly affected - I'd image a lawyer would get more interested in a possible class action, so if can find others harmed that might help your case - or even in terms of going to the media.
posted by coffeecat at 6:33 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
But, regardless of what you find, I'd also try to dig up the old websites of the first and second pet insurance companies, using WayBack Machine or another Internet archive, and any advertising if you have it. I am not a lawyer, and hopefully some lawyer Mefites can chime in, but I wonder if you could sue on the basis of deceptive advertising. When I looked into Pet Insurance I recall one of the main pitches companies used was about their dependability - that, as you say attracted you, they promise to be there cradle to grave to provide care for your pet.
You might also go to Reddit - r/cats, r/petinsurancereviews, etc. and see if you can find other people similarly affected - I'd image a lawyer would get more interested in a possible class action, so if can find others harmed that might help your case - or even in terms of going to the media.
posted by coffeecat at 6:33 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
That is a beautiful cat. I'm in the UK so I may be missing some context - but I would look for other quotes (do you have something like comparethemarket.com there?). Then I'd ring either Hartville or PTZ and ask them for a quote to continue the all-inclusive policy. Obviously play off lower quotes against each other. If no success, I'd go to a specialist insurance broker.
posted by paduasoy at 6:41 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
posted by paduasoy at 6:41 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
You might also look for legal precedent on this sort of thing, which has probably happened before with human insurance companies (and there might be relevant non-insurance cases too). Or just directly talk with a lawyer about what the relevant legal area would be, and then take with someone who specializes in that area.
posted by trig at 6:43 AM on October 28
posted by trig at 6:43 AM on October 28
Another option would be to call around to some of the other major pet insurance companies (for example, trupanion is what I use and they are generally quite popular - I've had good experiences). Basically, give them the full story, and how your current insurance company screwed you over.
You'd be paying a really high rate, but maybe you could convince another insurance company to give you coverage and to waive the pre-existing conditions terms?
Even better if you could find other people affected similarly by this insurance companies actions, and then go to the media. If you can get a little bit of media buzz about this, then maybe that will either pressure the original company to do better, or maybe another insurance company will step up in exchange for the positive publicity.
IANAL, but it seems like a lawsuit would only make sense once you could prove damages. Which would only work after you had a massive medical bill that you got stuck paying off. And of course, that would depend on the terms and contracts and all that stuff.
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:52 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
You'd be paying a really high rate, but maybe you could convince another insurance company to give you coverage and to waive the pre-existing conditions terms?
Even better if you could find other people affected similarly by this insurance companies actions, and then go to the media. If you can get a little bit of media buzz about this, then maybe that will either pressure the original company to do better, or maybe another insurance company will step up in exchange for the positive publicity.
IANAL, but it seems like a lawsuit would only make sense once you could prove damages. Which would only work after you had a massive medical bill that you got stuck paying off. And of course, that would depend on the terms and contracts and all that stuff.
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:52 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
I'd at least try and have a conversation with a lawyer about this, as others have said. There are SO many shady characters running scams in the pet insurance/vet care plan space and it feels to me like a lot of people quietly accept these losses because they feel a bit embarrassed to have been in a position to have bought pet insurance in the first place.
For what it's worth, when we got to the "truly exorbitant" phase of veterinary care, our insurer found excuses to deny many of our claims, and paid out a fraction of the total cost of others. You may not have been as well covered as you think. We were grieving and felt like huge chumps for having paid for insurance our dogs' whole lives so we didn't even consider legal action. But I think that's what they're counting on. I hope you take these bastards to the cleaners.
posted by potrzebie at 8:33 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
For what it's worth, when we got to the "truly exorbitant" phase of veterinary care, our insurer found excuses to deny many of our claims, and paid out a fraction of the total cost of others. You may not have been as well covered as you think. We were grieving and felt like huge chumps for having paid for insurance our dogs' whole lives so we didn't even consider legal action. But I think that's what they're counting on. I hope you take these bastards to the cleaners.
posted by potrzebie at 8:33 AM on October 28 [4 favorites]
We chose a plan that promised a predetermined, stable rate from age 10 on, so we knew we could always keep it.
You need to find this plan, and read the text of the contract you agreed to. I would be surprised if a company offered that plan, and didn't include any provisions for terminating such a plan. But if they did, then you have a legal claim to make.
If you don't have access to that agreement, I don't know what a lawyer would do to help you.
The law doesn't care about what's fair. The law cares about what you agreed to. What did you agree to?
posted by saeculorum at 9:10 AM on October 28 [12 favorites]
You need to find this plan, and read the text of the contract you agreed to. I would be surprised if a company offered that plan, and didn't include any provisions for terminating such a plan. But if they did, then you have a legal claim to make.
If you don't have access to that agreement, I don't know what a lawyer would do to help you.
The law doesn't care about what's fair. The law cares about what you agreed to. What did you agree to?
posted by saeculorum at 9:10 AM on October 28 [12 favorites]
I don't want to discourage you from reading your old contracts or even speaking to your state's insurance commissioner/equivalent, as there may be some wrinkle here we can't discern from a distance, but.
You did get what you've paid for to date, which is coverage for all the time up to age 17. Pippin (a splendid cat, btw, long may she reign) could've run out into the street and been hit by a car at 6. She could've developed cancer at 13. The costs for treatment in these cases would (presumably) have been covered. What you pay for with insurance is coverage for the covered period, which is usually roughly contemporaneous with the payment. (Odd cases like LTC insurance require special regulation to make sure the consumer gets value later on.)
I think it is very unlikely that any pet insurance policy you entered into did not make a provision for its termination in case the company got out of the business (because otherwise they'd be committing to keeping the company running well into the future, which might not even be possible). My own little guy's policy allows for without-cause termination 90 days after notice to me. It is at least worth shopping around to see if anyone else will offer you what is effectively a catastrophic policy, though your instincts about that may be right.
(It is also worth considering that a 17-year-old cat is already very senior and the odds that you would want to subject them to any form of crazy expensive intervention like chemo at that age are relatively low.)
posted by praemunire at 10:58 AM on October 28 [15 favorites]
You did get what you've paid for to date, which is coverage for all the time up to age 17. Pippin (a splendid cat, btw, long may she reign) could've run out into the street and been hit by a car at 6. She could've developed cancer at 13. The costs for treatment in these cases would (presumably) have been covered. What you pay for with insurance is coverage for the covered period, which is usually roughly contemporaneous with the payment. (Odd cases like LTC insurance require special regulation to make sure the consumer gets value later on.)
I think it is very unlikely that any pet insurance policy you entered into did not make a provision for its termination in case the company got out of the business (because otherwise they'd be committing to keeping the company running well into the future, which might not even be possible). My own little guy's policy allows for without-cause termination 90 days after notice to me. It is at least worth shopping around to see if anyone else will offer you what is effectively a catastrophic policy, though your instincts about that may be right.
(It is also worth considering that a 17-year-old cat is already very senior and the odds that you would want to subject them to any form of crazy expensive intervention like chemo at that age are relatively low.)
posted by praemunire at 10:58 AM on October 28 [15 favorites]
The law doesn't care about what's fair. The law cares about what you agreed to.
In the consumer context, or any other highly regulated context, this is not necessarily the case (Dodd-Frank literally bans "unfair" conduct by covered persons!). That's why it's worth some inquiry; the contractual terms are something of a fallback.
posted by praemunire at 11:00 AM on October 28 [3 favorites]
In the consumer context, or any other highly regulated context, this is not necessarily the case (Dodd-Frank literally bans "unfair" conduct by covered persons!). That's why it's worth some inquiry; the contractual terms are something of a fallback.
posted by praemunire at 11:00 AM on October 28 [3 favorites]
As others have said, it seems to me that the key is whatever promises were made in the initial materials and the plan terms and conditions over time. My best guess would be that you were buying 1 year's worth of coverage for each year, with no promise that the coverage would be available after that. (That's how human coverage works, for example.) But perhaps there were promises in the materials you were provided that go beyond 1 year.
posted by Mid at 11:16 AM on October 28
posted by Mid at 11:16 AM on October 28
Response by poster: It's true that I have gotten what I agreed to. Their terms do say they can do pretty much whatever they want, with notice. I'm still trying to dig up the original Purinacare terms, but I'm guessing they had similar loopholes.
That's different from human insurance, though. Human insurers aren't allowed to decline to cover your pre-existing conditions (thanks, Obama). All pet insurers do. So we can't get good coverage from any other insurer. I was in fact buying year-to-year coverage, but I was meaning to buy the ability to be covered for Pippin's life. I've learned the hard way that I wasn't accomplishing that. Their terms do state as much, but I don't think they should be able to -- they should be regulated more like human insurance so you can't be left without any good alternatives after paying them for 17 years.
So I'll take a bunch of the steps being suggested here -- either for my own sake or to advocate for better regulation going forward -- and I'll report back. In the meantime, more thoughts are very welcome -- they've been very helpful so far.
posted by daisyace at 11:57 AM on October 28 [6 favorites]
That's different from human insurance, though. Human insurers aren't allowed to decline to cover your pre-existing conditions (thanks, Obama). All pet insurers do. So we can't get good coverage from any other insurer. I was in fact buying year-to-year coverage, but I was meaning to buy the ability to be covered for Pippin's life. I've learned the hard way that I wasn't accomplishing that. Their terms do state as much, but I don't think they should be able to -- they should be regulated more like human insurance so you can't be left without any good alternatives after paying them for 17 years.
So I'll take a bunch of the steps being suggested here -- either for my own sake or to advocate for better regulation going forward -- and I'll report back. In the meantime, more thoughts are very welcome -- they've been very helpful so far.
posted by daisyace at 11:57 AM on October 28 [6 favorites]
it seems like a lawsuit would only make sense once you could prove damages. Which would only work after you had a massive medical bill that you got stuck paying off.
> Human insurers aren't allowed to decline to cover your pre-existing conditions (thanks, Obama). All pet insurers do. So we can't get good coverage from any other insurer.
Yeah, to me this is a real damage - being left unable to purchase any new coverage. Whether a court would find that convincing without your having paid, or been unable to afford, a giant medical bill I don't know, but it's something there is probably precedent about.
posted by trig at 12:58 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
> Human insurers aren't allowed to decline to cover your pre-existing conditions (thanks, Obama). All pet insurers do. So we can't get good coverage from any other insurer.
Yeah, to me this is a real damage - being left unable to purchase any new coverage. Whether a court would find that convincing without your having paid, or been unable to afford, a giant medical bill I don't know, but it's something there is probably precedent about.
posted by trig at 12:58 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
I'm so sorry. Pet insurance is very misleading this way, and many people lose their coverage as soon as an animal gets old or turns out to have expensive needs. It deeply sucks, and I have 0% respect for pet insurers. So as I continue, keep in mind that I'm not trying to be harsh or go to bat for the insurance industry.
I'm afraid it's unlikely that your insurer is breaking the law or your contract. You paid for property insurance for however many years, and the insurer fulfilled their obligation by making coverage available to you during that time, whether or not you used it. Then they decided you were either no longer profitable or about to become so, and they dropped you. This is standard; it's how insurance operates in every sector except for (post-ACA) healthcare. Even with something as significant as a homeowner's policy, you can be dropped essentially whenever—and if no one will sell you a new policy, you're flat out of luck in some states, and left at the mercy of your mortgage lender. (In other places, you can pay through the nose for catastrophic FAIR coverage, but that's about it.) And objectively, pet insurance is far less consequential, and therefore even less regulated, than home insurance.
Subjectively, however, the stakes for pet insurance are very high. Did you pause when I said "property insurance"? Most people do. Because emotionally, we consider pets family—but legally, they're property. That paradox is part of what's so insidious about pet insurance. The insurers exploit your emotional assumptions with marketing that suggests you're paying for a contract akin to health insurance. But they're actually selling a form of property insurance. And like any property insurer, they'll simply drop you when you become expensive, or cancel the policy type if it's no longer profitable.
In light of that, if you want to try again with a new policy or a new insurer, be aware that this could easily happen again. And you may find it's not possible to get a new policy at all, due to Pippin's age. I know that feels scary right now. But as you process, this might be a good opportunity to reflect on what you want Pippin's medical care to look like going forward. Would an insurance policy actually serve her needs at this point in her life? Maybe not. Insurance can be a double-edged sword in old age, in that it tempts us to endlessly treat pets (or people) whose bodies are indicating that they want to move on. Having too much care available at end-of-life often makes it harder for us to fulfill our fundamental duty to our pets—that is, to help them live as well as possible and die a comfortable death.
But I know none of that changes the sense of betrayal and anger that you're feeling right now. This shit sucks, and you have every right to be upset. You're processing a lot right now, so just take it slow. Pet the kitty. And trust that you'll reach a positive outcome in the end, whatever that looks like for you.
posted by desert outpost at 11:46 PM on October 29 [1 favorite]
I'm afraid it's unlikely that your insurer is breaking the law or your contract. You paid for property insurance for however many years, and the insurer fulfilled their obligation by making coverage available to you during that time, whether or not you used it. Then they decided you were either no longer profitable or about to become so, and they dropped you. This is standard; it's how insurance operates in every sector except for (post-ACA) healthcare. Even with something as significant as a homeowner's policy, you can be dropped essentially whenever—and if no one will sell you a new policy, you're flat out of luck in some states, and left at the mercy of your mortgage lender. (In other places, you can pay through the nose for catastrophic FAIR coverage, but that's about it.) And objectively, pet insurance is far less consequential, and therefore even less regulated, than home insurance.
Subjectively, however, the stakes for pet insurance are very high. Did you pause when I said "property insurance"? Most people do. Because emotionally, we consider pets family—but legally, they're property. That paradox is part of what's so insidious about pet insurance. The insurers exploit your emotional assumptions with marketing that suggests you're paying for a contract akin to health insurance. But they're actually selling a form of property insurance. And like any property insurer, they'll simply drop you when you become expensive, or cancel the policy type if it's no longer profitable.
In light of that, if you want to try again with a new policy or a new insurer, be aware that this could easily happen again. And you may find it's not possible to get a new policy at all, due to Pippin's age. I know that feels scary right now. But as you process, this might be a good opportunity to reflect on what you want Pippin's medical care to look like going forward. Would an insurance policy actually serve her needs at this point in her life? Maybe not. Insurance can be a double-edged sword in old age, in that it tempts us to endlessly treat pets (or people) whose bodies are indicating that they want to move on. Having too much care available at end-of-life often makes it harder for us to fulfill our fundamental duty to our pets—that is, to help them live as well as possible and die a comfortable death.
But I know none of that changes the sense of betrayal and anger that you're feeling right now. This shit sucks, and you have every right to be upset. You're processing a lot right now, so just take it slow. Pet the kitty. And trust that you'll reach a positive outcome in the end, whatever that looks like for you.
posted by desert outpost at 11:46 PM on October 29 [1 favorite]
« Older How to (mount? set?) deceased cat's tuft of fur? | Simple whiteboard questions for embedded systems... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by koahiatamadl at 5:15 AM on October 28